Airbus In-flight Performance is changing again!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus In-flight Performance is changing again!
Airbus, Are you freaking kidding me?
Should we familiarize ourselves with this new method, or should we just wait to the next one?
Make up your mind!
Should we familiarize ourselves with this new method, or should we just wait to the next one?
Make up your mind!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Statistically speaking, you can expect a cluster of changes in any complex software system of this age. One only needs to glance at the bevy of changes that IBM enacted in the OS of their mainframes... After about 25 years of operation.
What needs discussion - and discussion that doesn't degrade into an Airbus vs. Boeing slugfest - is whether or not there are little-known flaws in Airbus flight laws.
Again, statistically, it takes many years and numerous operating hours for these pernicious little bugs to reveal themselves.
Referring back to IBM, there was a tiny, insignificant code error in the 360 Operating System which would overwrite some data which had been archived. When it was discovered, IBM had to basically "ground" the operating system until that particular code error could be fixed.
Don't read this wrong - I'm not suggesting that any Airbus needs to be grounded.
I'm simply saying that, given a few recent incidents, maybe they should be looking at their code.
Perfect never, ever happens. But maybe they can refine and research a bit.
Statistically speaking.
Not a pilot, not anti-Airbus. Merely saying that a complex system might have flaws that only reveal after a large number of operations.
What needs discussion - and discussion that doesn't degrade into an Airbus vs. Boeing slugfest - is whether or not there are little-known flaws in Airbus flight laws.
Again, statistically, it takes many years and numerous operating hours for these pernicious little bugs to reveal themselves.
Referring back to IBM, there was a tiny, insignificant code error in the 360 Operating System which would overwrite some data which had been archived. When it was discovered, IBM had to basically "ground" the operating system until that particular code error could be fixed.
Don't read this wrong - I'm not suggesting that any Airbus needs to be grounded.
I'm simply saying that, given a few recent incidents, maybe they should be looking at their code.
Perfect never, ever happens. But maybe they can refine and research a bit.
Statistically speaking.
Not a pilot, not anti-Airbus. Merely saying that a complex system might have flaws that only reveal after a large number of operations.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they will change a lot of stuff in the new FPE. New matrixes, computation of LD for single or no failure and for several failures… It seems rather complex although after so many methods.
I think it is just best to use the computer
I think it is just best to use the computer
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is just best to use the computer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
even with computers or iPads we have to be familiar with the QRH performance.
So many changes makes me thing bad of Airbus. How can I trust anything they do if they keep changing things all the time?
So many changes makes me thing bad of Airbus. How can I trust anything they do if they keep changing things all the time?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nowhere near Shinbone Waterhole
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus, Are you freaking kidding me?
airbus meanwhile vehemently continues to blame pilots for everything.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a double FAC failure and see how that bloody Toulouse crowd respond...
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nowhere near Shinbone Waterhole
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dunno what the big issue is,
frogs instantly blamed the pilots instead.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently you refer to the aftermath of an actual case.
I just went by the normal training schedule and procedure. As it is available it is a "normal" non normal that was apparently thought of as possible by the designers of the airplane (or at least of the ECAM procedures), otherwise it wouldn't exist. It doesn't even carry a LAND ASAP caption which allows us quite a few options to deal with it and as it doesn't even drop one into direct law anymore with gear down (on sharklet equipped aircraft) it is a non issue flying wise.
I just went by the normal training schedule and procedure. As it is available it is a "normal" non normal that was apparently thought of as possible by the designers of the airplane (or at least of the ECAM procedures), otherwise it wouldn't exist. It doesn't even carry a LAND ASAP caption which allows us quite a few options to deal with it and as it doesn't even drop one into direct law anymore with gear down (on sharklet equipped aircraft) it is a non issue flying wise.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as it doesn't even drop one into direct law anymore with gear down (on sharklet equipped aircraft) it is a non issue flying wise.
